Top Five James Commentaries

Introduction.  Commentaries on James necessarily must deal with the potential conflict between James and Paul. This is a well known problem, since James says that faith without works is dead (James ) while Paul says that one is justified by faith, not by good works. There are a number of later apocryphal stories which develop this conflict well beyond the biblical data. The reformation stream of Christianity struggled with James, Luther’s disdain for the book is an example of a preference for Pauline theology over and above James.

Another issue with James is the genre. The book is very loosely structured, almost as if it is a compilation of sayings and short teachings rather than a book with a clear argument. (Again, this is in contrast to Paul’s style of writing.) Many commentaries observe that James is not unlike the book of Proverbs, but few develop this idea that much because (in truth) it is not that much like Proverbs! One option is to read James as a late-compilation of James’s sayings, written after his death in the mid-60’s A.D. My preference is to read this book as very early, perhaps predating Paul (or at least written at the same time as Galatians or Thessalonians).

I should mention a couple of other books which I have found helpful for studying James.  Bruce Chilton and Jacob Neusner edited a volume of essays on James: The Brother of Jesus (Louisville: Westminster John Knox: 2001).  Richard Bauckham’s essay in this book James and Jesus is excellent, and I have found Craig Evans’s article on James and Qumran very helpful.  John Painter’s Just James (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999) is a highly detailed monograph on James in Christian tradition, beginning with Acts and Paul, then Eusebius, Nag Hammadi, and the Christian Apocrypha.  Painter concludes with a brief review of the idiosyncratic James, The Brother of the Lord by Robert Eisenman.  Eisenman’s book is massive and develops a view that Paul and James represent a major rift in the earliest church.  I am not convinced by Eisenman, but the book is an interesting read.

Luke Timothy Johnson, The Letter of James (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1995). Johnson’s commentary replaced the rather slender volume by Bo Reicke (remarkable for including the epistles of Peter and Jude in a mere 221 pages!) By contrast, Johnson’s commentary begins with 164 pages of introduction to the letter of James alone. In fact, the introduction is worth the price of the book. I find his description of the similarities and differences between Paul and James helpful, concluding that the contrast is distorted by focusing on a single topic (justification by faith). Johnson dates the book early, written by a Jewish Christian in Palestine who had access to an early form of Jesus tradition (perhaps Q). The introduction has a long section on history of interpretation, asking the question, “How was the voice of James heard” by the church?” The commentary itself is based on the Greek text, but all Greek is transliterated. All citations in the commentary portion are in-text. Johnson draws parallels to Second Temple Period Jewish literature as well as Greco-Roman moralists. As with most of the recent volumes in the Anchor series, John includes detailed bibliographies at the end of each section, including German and French scholarship.

Scot McKnight, James (NICNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2011). Scot McKnight is an unusual in that he is a respected biblical scholar yet is able to write with a pastor’s heart on topics which speak to important contemporary issues. McKnight’s commentary is another excellent contribution to the NICNT series, replacing James Adamson’s 1976 volume. While Adamson is still a useful commentary, McKnight’s contribution goes far beyond what the NICNT series expected thirty-five years ago. After a brief introduction (55 pages, defending a generally traditional view of the letter), the commentary proceeds phrase by phrase, Greek appears in transliteration, but in footnotes it is not. Most of these notes are lexical or textual. McKnight fully develops the wisdom-aspect of the letter of James, occasionally citing at length parallels to Jewish wisdom drawn from the Hebrew Bible, especially Proverbs but also Sirach. He has a short excursus on Paul and James, concluding that James is responding to Paul (or some of Paul’s early followers who distorted Paul’s teaching). As with most of McKnight’s work, this is a very readable commentary. While readers familiar only with The Jesus Creed will find McKnight’s scholarship taxing, this commentary will be the “first off the shelf” for many years to come.

Ralph P. Martin, James (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1988). The introduction to the book of James is about one-third of the book, and well worth reading despite being a bit dated. Martin sees a two-stage process for the production of the letter, first a collection of sayings going back to “James the Jerusalem Martyr” was made. These sayings were then edited (polished?) by a Hellenistic writer to produce the letter as we have it. This accounts for the Jewish / Wisdom aspects of the books as well as the Hellenistic / Moralists aspects. Martin’s commentary is one of the better on this list for treating the Greek text. Throughout the commentary the Greek is cited (without transliteration), Martin comments on both lexical and syntactical elements of the text. The Word series concludes each commentary section with an “Explanation,” here Martin draws on his exegesis to draw theological and pastoral conclusions.

Douglas Moo, James (PNTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000) and James (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1985, 2009). Doug Moo wrote the replacement in the Tyndale New Testament commentary on James in 1985 (originally published by Eerdmans, now Intervarsity). This little commentary is very handy, treating Greek in transliteration and dealing with the more controversial issues only briefly. His more recent Pillar Commentary is much more substantial, developing his arguments for the traditional view that James was written by the Lord’s brother in the mid-40’s in more detail. I find his section on the theology of James quite helpful since it goes beyond the usual “works vs. faith” issue. The body of the commentary proceeds phrase by phrase, treating Greek in transliteration. Moo judiciously draws parallels to other Second Temple Period literature, showing that James stands in the Jewish tradition without cluttering the commentary with external sources. The text is quite readable, making this an ideal commentary for the busy pastor preparing to preach through James.

Peter H. Davids, James (NIBC; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1989). I have not included any commentaries from this series (originally published by Hendrickson, now by Baker). They are handy paperback volumes, inexpensive yet usually good for preparing a sermon. This slender commentary includes Davids’s article on the Theology of James first published in JETS in 1980. The body of the commentary is based on the NIV, although there are “additional notes” dealing with aspects of the Greek text (in transliteration). Davids includes parallels to Jewish literature in these notes, which strike me as more lengthy than other commentaries in the series.

Conclusion. There are a few missing – Blomberg and Kamell in the new Zondervan Exegetical Series should be mentioned, but I do not have a copy to review.  What else is missing?  What is the classic commentary on James which ought to be on every scholar’s shelf? What have you found useful in your teaching of James?


Index for the Top Five Commentary Series


Introduction to Series on Commentaries

On Using Commentaries 

Matthew        Mark        Luke        John        Acts
Romans        1 Corinthians         2 Corinthians
Galatians         Ephesians        Philippians        Colossians
1-2 Thessalonians        Pastoral Epistles         Philemon
Hebrews        James         1 Peter         2 Peter & Jude 
Letters of John         Revelation

Conclusion:  Last Thoughts on New Testament Commentaries

13 thoughts on “Top Five James Commentaries

  1. I can’t believe you didn’t include Davids’ commentary in the NIGTC because one, you always include the volume from NIGTC, and two, i find it to be better than Martin.

    • Wow, complete oversight on my part. I would have combined it with the shorter NIV commentary. I blame vacations.

  2. I like Dan McCartney, BECNT: JAMES. Like his early stance on the writting of James, and helpful exposition. Classic should be on every library is Joseph B. Mayor, THE EPISTLE OF JAMES, reprinted by Baker Book House (or least the copy I have).

  3. Richard Bauckham’s James in the New Testament Readings series in worth taking a look at. P. J. Hartin, James (Sacra Pagina; 2003) is also very good.

  4. Phil: Have you read Prof Scaer’s book … James: The Apostle of Faith? He says James comes before Paul’s conversion and shortly after Stephen was martyred while the church was a Jewish entity, that the Gospel writers may have depended in part on James for their writing, and that James is written to Jerusalem priests who are believers! I am a “general reader” with not enough knowledge to comment, but what do you think of those ideas?

    • I am not familiar with it, but I have added it to my list. I am interested in the idea that James was written early, although before Paul’s conversion seems too early! I guess I will need to read his book.

  5. There are two opposite paths to the Divine.

    James represents the Way of Grace or the Grail Path. This is the path of the creative or egoless person. (Virgin Mary – Hail Mary full of Grace.)

    Paul represents the Way of Passion or the Alchemy Path. This is the path of the intellectual or ego shedding path. (Must die to self and kill the flesh)

    The kicker is that both paths are valid ways to the divine. Each is right for their own paths and wrong for the other path. Both ways are championed in the New Testament.

    We must find ways to honor both ways in our congregations, but it is important for each person to follow the way that best suits their personality traits.

  6. Hi Phillip

    This is just a follow up to my earlier comment. James Adamson’s NICNT volume is generally regarded as a pretty dry and pedestrian commentary. I own his later ‘James: The Man and His Message’ (Eerdmans, 1989) and this is generally much better compared to the sections on James I’ve consulted in his NICNT volume.

    • I wonder if “dry and pedestrian” was a requirement of NICNT volumes at one time….! I do not have the later book, I will have to find a copy. Thanks!

  7. Hi,
    What do you think of the Zecnt by Blomberg on Acts. Just read a little on one of the reviews. How does it compare with the others you recommended?

    • Heh, I replied for James. Didn’t even notice the book! On the other hand Acts is coming out in that series by Nov., in time foe ETS/SBL. Ekhard Schnabel is going to challenge Keener for thickest commentary ever.

  8. Hi Phillip,
    I just bought the commentary on James by Blomberg and Kamell. Its brilliant, I have Moo as well, it compares favourably with Moo. It will be great for preaching and bible studies. It is quite practical with application sections. I now have two of the ZECNT series – Luke by garland and now James. It is just below pillar series in detail but a lot more on the text than the NIVAC series. I like the format too. You should check them out.

Leave a Reply